How about this classy ride captured in motion by Jerome Solberg at the Cohort? If a 1950s Cadillac is just too common for you, how about this far more exclusive and rarer ’53 Packard convertible?
Only 2,268 droptops came out from Packard for 1953. 750 of them being Caribbean models, and 1,518 belonging to today’s find. For ’53 this “smart new Convertible” was powered by a 180hp Thunderbolt 327cid Straight Eight, with four-barrel carburation and chrome-plated pistons. By all accounts an incredibly well-balanced and silky smooth powerplant. Part of the magic of the Packard name and its dignified ride.
The Packard saga was about to enter its final chapters soon after, and the brand had certainly lost some luster by the mid-’50s. That said, nowadays this one makes a rather dashing sight on the street.
Related CC reading:
Cohort Outtake: 1953 Packard Clipper Two Door Sedan – A Stripper In Nevada
Sad to see such a storied Marque, once the pinnacle of American Luxury vehicles so quickly and irrevocably fall. Last Days in the Bunker tells the story of Packard trying to survive, finally merging with Studebaker as part of Nashs George Mason’s failed plan to combine Nash, Hudson, Packard, and Studebaker. This is Only one example of great automotive names no longer built. Check out the Packard Predictor to see what might have been the next Packard. Also the Packard REQUEST was built on a 55 Packard with traditional Packard grille.
Beautiful car. Thanks.
Probably the greatest straight 8 of all time. However, OHV V-8’s were becoming all the rage, with far more performance potential. These early fifties Packards were fine, well-built cars, but the early whiffs of the stench of death were already affecting the brand. Buyers looking for a solid, upper-medium car abandoned Packard in droves for Buick and Olds.
Nice, I love the 1953 covertible even more. I like the bid round rear wheel wells
My goodness! Classy yellow, calls out “elegance”. Would like to see it with top up . I’d be afraid to drive it anyplace though..
The sort of people shown in that ad are those I couldn’t see buying a new Packard in 1953. Maybe a Cadillac. Flashy was in, subdued elegance and quality that Packard offered was out. Inline flathead 8’s were out too, although I think I would have preferred their buttery smoothness to the more powerful but rougher V8 that took its place in 1955. Also, the interiors on these were just too plain for a car in this price range. Look at that dash. I do love the glovebox that opens like a drawer though (and shown open here – how often is the glovebox open in a brochure or advertisement in a general interior shot?
Looks like a Joseph Dennis shot…
A company as small as Packard could only afford one body size, and because the small company was Packard it needed to be a C-body, not this B.
Packard had two body sizes from 1951 on: 122″ wb and 127″ wb. The longer one had an extended body compartment at the rear, with longer doors and more leg room. It was legitimately a longer body and comparable to GM’s C Body, and the 122″ was comparable to GM’s B Body.
The coupes and convertibles were (rightfully) on the shorter wb.
Yes, the front half of them both were essentially the same, but that also applied to GM C and B Body cars, at least in many years.
+1
Thanks for posting this picture!
Notice the non-amber turn signals. I don’t remember when the law/convention changed, but it wasn’t much after this.
I caught this in Vancouver. Shortly afterwards the light changed and the car silently made the left turn and proceeded on its way, silently and majestically.
Paul W – if I understand it, the 127″ wheelbase versions of these were “C-body class”. Problem was the short- and long- wheelbase versions were hardly distinguishable, and as mentioned rhe interiors were rather spartan, at least from the dash standpoint. They made a “B” (really a “B” taxicab) and stretched it to a “C”, whereas they really needed to start with a “C”.
Still with the 1953 restyle these looked pretty good.
Cheers!
> Notice the non-amber turn signals. I don’t remember when the law/convention changed, but it wasn’t much after this.
1963, and of course there’s a whole article here about it:
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/automotive-histories/automotive-history-when-front-turn-signals-changed-colour-amber-waves-of-pain/
Had to read and saw the name Merrill J. Allen, OD. A quick search listed his history for me where Indiana University said he was a leading researcher in automotive lighting. Apparently not with amber colored turn signals. Then it dawned on my the Optometry School there and sure enough a classmate of mine was Dean and now Dean Emeritus. Way to go, Joe.
Packard management hadn’t recognized the late 1940’s the market in which they could effectively compete was versus C-Body Buick Super, the real size and price GM volume seller that was eating their lunch. Tooling for the 122″ wb 200 sedans placed them versus Buick Special and Olds 88 both who could undercut Packard by hundreds for a comparable sedan and did.
The money they spent on the 1951 122 cars was imo the biggest of the many factors that led to Packard’s eventual demise, because it led to seven 122 Juniors and only two 127 Seniors, and one of those competed with Roadmaster rather than Cadillac. They should have started with the 127 C-body and given it Junior styling to compete with Buick 50/70, then added length strategically to create a Senior line that would take on Cadillac. The body shell would be shared but the how the car was dimensioned and styled rear of the body is where the Seniors would have shined. So much missed opportunity with that 54th Series!
Oops… 24th Series that came out in ’51. Forever confusing.
Which was also not only confusing but dumb. Who else marketed their cars by Series, capital S. It sounded good in the board room but it confused the public who just didn’t care.
I caught a quick shot of this car a few years back – a real beauty.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/124897762@N02/52338135219/in/photolist-2aEiYWi-LddWcG-eiXxWn-dS3qG8-2oUMW4u-S5zTCM-RaPCm7-dZsh3Y-dZmyTa-2nCojYn-dZsh4G-eVAJp9-2nJWCaH-dZmyVn-dZsh6y-28JPy5v-2p8FEGq-2juZmu5-2oSVGK5-y6qGcf-DfNhyE-22djnPb-dZsh4N-dZsh5G-dZmyVB-E8VNfz-2nCojZu-2mwjx1w-y7RnNm-dB3WmZ-y8JWpp-TGQGwf-h6D5P1-4E4Utv-4E9RNq-HBQTh5-27UqXzL-qoY3yD-nQAN1D-xR7YPs-qFoiXD-VLmDRr-oA8HkW-qoY3GV-pDxARn-buzMi1-r26tiv-iPsCy7-xR7YR1-iPoJQT
Love these! Did anyone else notice the similarity in the downturned grills on the Packard and the Toyota behind it? Maybe I’m reaching
My parents owned a 1953 Packard 4-door sedan , and they were so comfortable to ride in , that the passengers in the back seat would go to sleep ! Hopefully not the ” driver .” The biggest complaint about our ’53 Packard was the poor fuel economy . Years ago , while on a road trip through the mountains , it used almost an entire tank of gas just in a distance of a little over 100 miles . They were not economy cars by any means .